Political action and the Trump Presidency

[CountDeMoney]

Sure, but it could be argued they were right to be militant during that time frame.

Long before camcorders and cellphones, they were listening to scanners for police calls, and showing up at the same time to guarantee against police brutality in Oakland.

Oh forgot ELF.

Too amorphous. Same with ALF.   

[jimmy olsen]

We can't all be conservatives.

Not true!

To expand on this a little without going into the full rant, there's a lot of energy for political change in this country and if it's not channeled in a positive direction it will be channeled elsewhere. We can't afford to ignore it and hope it will diffuse: there's a reason it built up in the first place.

[Edmund Burke]Being a conservative doesn't mean you are opposed to change - political or otherwise.  You just have to be careful and cautious, because not all change is for the better[/Edmund Burke]

The GOP is for radical change.

The party of the status quo and slow change in America is the Democrats.

[Valmy]

Well let me point out it was me being called conservative there which I do not deny.

[viper37]

I am curious and worried.

I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.

It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.

If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.

In a democracy, protests do not serve much.  It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left.  And I'm not much into bullying.  Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value.  You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.

I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to.  I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties.  But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.

[garbon]

I am curious and worried.

I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.

It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.

If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.

In a democracy, protests do not serve much.  It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left.  And I'm not much into bullying.  Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value.  You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.

I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to.  I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties.  But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.

The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real.

[mongers]

I am curious and worried.

I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.

It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.

If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.

In a democracy, protests do not serve much.  It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left.  And I'm not much into bullying.  Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value.  You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.

I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to.  I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties.  But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.

The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real.

Shush now, don't you remember all of the nasty intimidation those protesters did in the Southern USA during the 1960s?

[Maximus]

To me, militancy involves violence. Up until that point it's just political action and can only strengthen democratic institutions.

[Oexmelin]

At least that thread got me to realize militancy is a almost a "false friend" between English and French: it does carry much more violent overtones in English than it does in the French "militantisme", which is what I had in mind (which, can perhaps get imperfectly translated by "activism").

[Jacob]

At least that thread got me to realize militancy is a almost a "false friend" between English and French: it does carry much more violent overtones in English than it does in the French "militantisme", which is what I had in mind (which, can perhaps get imperfectly translated by "activism").

I don't think that's an English language thing, but rather a political spectrum thing. "Militant" has violent overtones only to those English speakers who are uncomfortable with militancy and wish to dismiss it as being undemocratic or otherwise beyond the pale.

When, for example, we speak of "militant Labour activists" in relation to British politics, the only violent overtones implied are there as a political smear job.

Per Merriam-Webster:

2:  aggressively active (as in a cause) :  combative - militant conservationists - a militant attitude

[garbon]

To me, militancy involves violence. Up until that point it's just political action and can only strengthen democratic institutions.

What about say 'a militant feminist'?

[garbon]

I am curious and worried.

I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.

It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.

If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.

In a democracy, protests do not serve much.  It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left.  And I'm not much into bullying.  Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value.  You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.

I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to.  I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties.  But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.

The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real.

Shush now, don't you remember all of the nasty intimidation those protesters did in the Southern USA during the 1960s?

Similarly the protest I went to outside of Downing Street seemed to be about something real, wasn't violent and was also pretty awe inspiring.

[viper37]

I am curious and worried.

I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.

It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.

If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.

In a democracy, protests do not serve much.  It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left.  And I'm not much into bullying.  Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value.  You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.

I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to.  I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties.  But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.

The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real.

One in a million?

[viper37]

To me, militancy involves violence. Up until that point it's just political action and can only strengthen democratic institutions.

What about say 'a militant feminist'?

Lorena Bobbit.

[Malthus]

The term "militant" can refer to either violent or non-violent advocacy of a cause.

It usually signifies a more confrontational approach than a non-militant advocacy, but the exact form of that confrontation can vary.

It isn't a contradiction in terms to have a "militant pacifist", presumably employing non-violent confrontation; however, the same term can and is used to describe expressly violent groups ("militant Islamic radicals assassinate cleric").

What is common to all forms of militancy is that the express purpose of a "militant" is to confront those who do not agree with them head-on, without any attempt to forge a common ground. An "advocate" for a cause is more likely to choose persuasion to win the uncommitted; a "militant advocate" is more likely to have the attitude that if you are not with them, you are against them.

[garbon]

I am curious and worried.

I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.

It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.

If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.

In a democracy, protests do not serve much.  It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left.  And I'm not much into bullying.  Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value.  You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.

I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to.  I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties.  But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.

The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real.

One in a million?

Actually, pretty sure there were hundreds of women's protests that day.